Thursday, March 2, 2017

Some Thoughts on 'Bigotry'

Two words used constantly by virtue signaling leftists against their ideological opponents are “bigot” and “intolerance.” Are these words useful in communicating ideas and arguments or are they just empty, vapid sounds emanating from clueless dolts?

The uncomfortable fact is that everyone is a “bigot.” Everyone has prejudices which they act upon that then become manifested and categorized as “bigotry.” Calling someone a “bigot” is as redundant as calling someone “human.” It’s meaningless. And by objecting to “bigots,” isn’t one becoming a “bigot” himself- by being bigoted against bigots?

Another useless word is “tolerance.” If you object to my declared “intolerance,” are not you intolerant, yourself, by objecting to my “intolerance?” How can you declare yourself tolerant when you have admitted intolerance to my intolerance?

The reason for using such terms is, of course, to censor thought. Sociopaths object to thoughts that conflict with theirs and use such meaningless words to slander and marginalize those holding thoughts, opinions, and beliefs that differ. Instead of actually constructing a logical argument to defend their objection, they find it so much easier to use slanderous and extremely subjective words such as “bigot” and “intolerant” to paint their opponent as someone not worthy of attention or respect. The “discussion” is therefore ended, leaving the slandered to defend himself, rather than challenging the name caller who has since run off to his safe space.

In reality (a construct that leftists often ignore), what truly matters are not a person’s thoughts (whether bigoted and/or intolerant), but his actions- particularly as it relates to how they treat the person and property of others.

People’s personal "bigotries" and "intolerance" comprise, at least in part, the information necessary to make choices in their lives. Such thoughts and beliefs make up the individual conscience that guide one toward acting in his best interest. As long as any action such an individual takes does not violate the person or property of others (including the actions of representatives or agents of this individual), why should anyone care what bigotries and intolerance this individual may have? And if such labeled individuals actually do initiate force or coercion against others, it’s certainly more important and relevant to expose the objective reality of such aggression and coercion rather than the subjective reality of their supposed motivation.

You may know a white person who is extremely bigoted against blacks, to the point that they will not freely associate with blacks, whatsoever. But as long as that white person does not initiate force or aggression against the blacks he despises, his “bigotries” are irrelevant. Only meddling busy bodies (such as government and its regressive supporters) will spend time to excoriate and ridicule that individual’s “thought crimes.” To thinking people, they are unimportant.

Many may consider my objection to immigration of unskilled, illiterate, culturally medieval peasants into the US (as long as a federal welfare state exists) as “bigoted.” However, whether that assertion is true is irrelevant. What is relevant are the inevitable costs, problems, parasitism and cultural problems that will occur (and proven by historical precedent) when such immigration is allowed. The actions (results) that occur subsequent to such immigration are what are important, not whatever "bigotry" one may claim inspired that opinion.

And if you don’t agree with, or find repulsive, such a person’s “bigoted” opinion, see if you can articulate why that position is incorrect without using inane, useless words as “bigotry” and “intolerance.” Resist emotion, laziness and convenience and instead embrace reason and logic. Attempt to illustrate how it is in the best interest of that “bigoted” individual to change such opinions. Just be prepared that you may be proven wrong. And certainly respect that individual’s choice to be disinterested in your thought conversion effort.

And if you still cannot compose such an argument, chances are you don’t have one to offer- meaning all your slanderous objections are nothing more than useless, emotionally programmed outbursts lacking any comprehensive knowledge or validity.

About Me

Several years ago I started writing as a hobby and I’ve had my columns published at Strike-the-Root.com, Lew Rockwell.com, Anti-War.com, MensNewsDaily.com, Novakeo.com, ActivistPost.com, InfoWars.com, and ThePriceofLiberty.org. I use my writing as a tool to encourage people to reject state dominion and to live as the free individuals God intended. Individual liberty is not compatible with state coercion, no matter the size of the institution nor the constitutional restrictions placed upon it. The goal of those liberated from statist inclinations and nationalism is a stateless society based on the principles of non-aggression, individual respect, self-ownership and common sense. This can only come about through individual-initiated education and spiritual reform. I hope my writing aids others in those pursuits.